1. Introduction
1.5 Conceptual approaches towards the multiplicity of forest
COUNTRIES AND FINLAND
In the Central Europe, in particular in the German speaking countries, the theory of forest functions was widespread. Its founder V. Dieterich (1953) defined forest function as a societal demand posed to forests such as wind protection or water retention.
Originally his ”Land area function” (Flächen-funktion) included the positive effects of the forest on climate, water management, erosion and landscape. These are regulatory and maintenance functions of forests. ”Primary-resource function“
(Rohstoff-funktion) formed the group of provisioning services.
However, the original ”Working function” (Arbeits-f.), ”Income function” (Einkommen-f), and ”Asset function” (Vermögens-f) (Dieterich 1953) refer all to economic roles of forests, being derived from provisioning services and as such cannot be translated into ecosystem services. Rather, these “functions” can be seen as the socio-economic drivers, as the major motivations for deriving individual and public benefits from forests to gain wages, income, profits, wealth and taxes. The standard socio-economic importance of forest benefits is largely built upon and even dominated by the magnitude and distribution of these categories, although welfare and well-being as inclusive concepts (such as in UK NEA 2011) offer broader social and cultural contents and meanings of what matters in “good life”.
In an article on the theory of forest functions and ecosystem services Riegert et al. (2010) state that Dieterich intended to describe the relationship between forests and people. His aim was to present the role of forests to people’s welfare. With this function theory of 1953, he formed the doctrine although ideas were there earlier. For example, in 1807 Konrad Zwierlein published "On the great influence of forests on culture and happiness of states" (cited in Riegert et al. 2010). Later forest functions were organized into three groups: utilization (in German Nutz), recreation (Erholung) and protection (Schutz).
21
These formed the basis of forest management, policy and legislation in several mid-European countries.
Some considerations on forest function theory and its relationship to multiple-use can be found also in Nordic countries (e.g. Huse 1973). The term forest function as such is common in forest literature everywhere, including FAO statistics as can be seen in a country report from Denmark (Koch 1984). A function, of course, plays an important role in the ecosystem service literature. It is a bridging concept in the translation of ecosystems structures and processes into goods and services (de Groot and van der Meer 2010) and has been defined as “the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly” (de Groot 1992). Multifunctional forestry usually is an alternative expression to multiple-use, or vice versa. However, the Scandinavian countries adopted widely the idea and concept of the multiple-use of forests, one immediate reason being that it was the theme of the 5th World Forestry Congress held in Seattle, USA, in 1960. This conceptual approach was also made known by the Multiple-Use -Sustained Yield Act 1960, which USA adopted at the same year for the federal forests (Saastamoinen et al. 1984, Cubbage et al. 1993, Hytönen 1995).
The act listed (in alphabetical order) outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish as purposes of forest management “to be utilized in the combination which best meets the needs of the American people” (Cubbage et al.
1993).
In Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden the research on multiple-use of forests (under this explicit title, older research and discussion6 on different uses existed earlier) started roughly at the same time, before and after the turn of 1960s and 1970s. It was focusing first on forest recreation (for example, in Denmark Koch 1974, in Norway Strand 1967, in Sweden Kardell 1972 and in Finland Saastamoinen 1972). Wider surveys on the
6 For example in Finland, Olli Heikinheimo, professor of silviculture, during the training day for the foresters in 1936, had a presentation on tourism and forestry (Heikinheimo 1939).
22 development of multiple-use concept and research in the Scandinavian countries are found in Saastamoinen et al. (1984) and in particular in Hytönen (1995).
1.6 MULTIPLE-USE AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
As discussed earlier, the traditional “multiple uses of forests"
were prevailing until liberalization of sawmilling restrictions and the rise of pulp and paper industries from the latter part of 19th century. However, systematic accounts of the all forest benefits are rare and often related to the considerations of definitions of forestry at large (Saari 1928, Helander 1949). Alho (1968) provides a historical survey and schematic picture of the long term importance of major forest uses in North Ostrobothnia, which also illustrated the growing role of wood production and forest industries in the economy of the country.
The actual concept of multiple-use of forests was first discussed in professional papers in the 1960s (e.g. Mikola 1966, Manninen 1967). Together with the beginning of research on new forest uses, in particular that of forest recreation in the urbanizing country, it brought an interest to study and also classify the wider scope of forest uses and benefits, old and new.
In the Finnish Forest Research Institute, a “multi-disciplinary”
group of researchers developed the classification of forest uses mainly for research purposes (Jaatinen and Saastamoinen 1976). It covered rather well the research planning7 and communication needs. By dividing two forest uses (outdoor recreation into everyman's outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism; and environmental influences of forests into carbon storage and other environmental influences) one got the following list of ten forest (forestry land) uses, which provides room for further identification and has formed a part of the frame serving first
7 In particular, when taking account that the number of researchers in the institute in this front was small during the first 10-15 years.
23
attempts to assess tentatively the total value of Finnish forest (Saastamoinen 1995, 1997):
a) wood production (all commercial and non-commercial wood utilization),
b) collecting berries, mushrooms and other non-wood resources (e.g. decorative lichen, forest flowers, herbs, birch sap etc.),
c) hunting and game management, d) reindeer husbandry and other grazing, e) landscape enjoyment and management,
f) everyman's outdoor recreation (non-commercial, based on everyman's rights),
g) nature based tourism (recreational activities based on or related to commercial tourism enterprises),
h) carbon sequestration capacity of forest,
i) other protective functions of forests (protection of soils, water resources, regulating micro and macro climate etc., and
j) nature (biodiversity) conservation and preservation.
This kind of classifications of forest uses in Finland on their part demonstrate that not a tiger’s leap but rather the deeper and more integrated ecological, economic and social re-thinking is needed to transform multiple-uses into the expanding framework of ecosystem services.